Karl Gallagher ([info]selenite) wrote,
@ 2005-11-14 11:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:politics, war

Presidential Candidate McCain?
I took another look at the Sen. McCain speech I linked last week:
we should at last face facts and increase the standing size of the U.S. Army. It takes time to build a larger army, but had we done so even after our invasion of Iraq, our military would have more soldiers available for deployment now.

I wonder if this translates as "When I'm President I want enough divisions to invade two countries at once, so let's get started." More fodder for 2008 speculation.


(23 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]gridlockjoe
2005-11-14 06:01 pm UTC (link)
I'm hoping for Warner/McCain myself. Doubt it'll happen, but one can dream.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]selenite
2005-11-14 07:18 pm UTC (link)
I've been reading up on Warner. Could be a good guy, but he's been avoiding my hot button issues so I'm going to wait and see.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tmc4242
2005-11-14 06:20 pm UTC (link)
If McCain is on the ticket I'll vote straight ticket Libertarian and be done with it. I will never trust McCain. YMMV.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]thegameiam
2005-11-14 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Why not? I heard this from another person I know, and he wasn't able to coherently explain why he wouldn't trust him. I'm curious about what it is about him that people so thoroughly distrust...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]selenite
2005-11-14 06:28 pm UTC (link)
My biggest objection to McCain is his desire to trash the 1st Amendment so he can expunge the shame of being one of the Keating Five. If we have to register our 2008 LJ posts as "contributions" to one party or the other he'll be one of the people who made it happen.

OTOH, we could do much worse. Voting Libertarian is for peacetime.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thegameiam
2005-11-14 06:56 pm UTC (link)
OK, so his status as a campaign-finance reformer is the problem, right? That makes sense - I'm not sure that the reforms didn't do more harm than good...

I do like the fact that he tries to cut down on pork - he seems to be a "good government" kind of guy, which is refreshing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]selenite
2005-11-14 07:17 pm UTC (link)
Well, the problem for me and other libertarian types. The Christian right considers him squishy on abortional and related issues. Republican partisans think he hangs out with reporters and Democrats too much. I think he'd have a heck of a time winning the primaries unless he gets the party establishment's (or Dubya's) blessing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thegameiam
2005-11-14 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Valid point. I liked him better than any other candidate in 2000, but I suspect he's pissed off too many people over his career to actually win a primary.

Hopefully someone who is similarly not a partisan hack can win on both sides of the aisle, and we could get a real conversation going about proper direction for the country.

And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony... ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
"Read My Lips: No New Taxes"
[info]carbonelle
2005-11-15 03:10 am UTC (link)
Since politics is the art of the compromise, it's probably not fair to hold politicians to the same standard of integrity that we hold people in more sane lines of work. Look at Bush: He probably has more personal integrity than nearly any modern pol. and he appears stubborn and inflexible.

McCain seems to get into more compromising positions than I like to see in a conservative in wartime.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "Read My Lips: No New Taxes"
[info]thegameiam
2005-11-15 03:18 am UTC (link)
hmmm... good point.

So maybe what I really want is someone who espouses mostly moderate positions, but believes in them really strongly, and will stand up for them forcefully.

Oh yeah, and kick all the bad guys' asses.

I guess s/he'll come riding in on that pony, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "Read My Lips: No New Taxes"
[info]selenite
2005-11-15 04:54 am UTC (link)
Better a pony than a white horse . . .

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "Read My Lips: No New Taxes"
[info]thegameiam
2005-11-15 11:48 am UTC (link)
Heh - you're absolutely right. I think the one on the white horse is the one the Democrats are waiting for (or maybe it's a donkey headed toward Jerusalem...) ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: "Read My Lips: No New Taxes"
(Anonymous)
2005-11-15 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Heh, that makes me think of Yeats
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
(http://www.well.com/user/eob/poetry/The_Second_Coming.html)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-11-15 07:12 pm UTC (link)
Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony, and a plastic rocket. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]thegameiam
2005-11-14 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Well, I think the biggest issue is being able to have a single serious war without calling up reserves. Our use of them has put a lot of stress on the whole system: the reservists mostly didn't expect to be active as much or for as long as they are, and while we could change that [and it's legal to do what we're doing], it's not nice change the deal in the middle...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phanatic
2005-11-14 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Well, I think the biggest issue is being able to have a single serious war without calling up reserves

That's not an "issue," that's completely intentional. The idea that the reserves are guard units are integral to front-line performance is part of the post-Vietnam rewriting of military doctrine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thegameiam
2005-11-14 10:27 pm UTC (link)
I think Sen. McCain wants to reduce the reliance on reserves.

I think we're agreeing here, right? Or am I misreading your opinion?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mycroftca
2005-11-14 11:52 pm UTC (link)
Standard US military plans insisted on the ability to wage two wars at the same time; we are, already, and we're stretched too thin to respond to any other threats.

Oh, Iraq and Afghanistan, if you've forgotten.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]selenite
2005-11-14 11:59 pm UTC (link)
We gave that capablity up in the post-Cold War downsizing of the military. McCain wants to go back to that and I think it's a good idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mycroftca
2005-11-15 03:15 pm UTC (link)
NO, Congress decided that the amount of troops available was sufficient to carry on two wars at once; the military disagreed. Time has proven the armed forces were correct. "Peace dividend" my ass.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
2 fronts
[info]curiousmay9
2005-11-15 02:17 pm UTC (link)
I was very concerned when Clinton pulled the military below the ability to fight a 2 front war. I'm not convinced that controlling the oil supply in the middle east is a good long term solution, either. But for the next decade or so we are stuck with this vulnerability.

My concerns are the waste and theft of military funds, the lack of proper gear and training for the reserve forces, and the attempt to move troop headcount "off the record" by having contractors (Haliburton, etc.) provide support.

If a supply sargeant sends the wrong size bullets to the troops, or fails to feed the guys fighting, he faces military discipline. But these contractors don't get performance reviews, and they are not getting fired for failure.

Does anybody remember how many American corporations did business with Hitler during WW2? IBM continued to supply critical war materials to the punchcard computers needed to keep the trains running supplies. This was after the government ordered trade with Germany cut off. If we turn our supply chain over to corporate interests, they may be more interested in their own profit than our national security.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: 2 fronts
[info]selenite
2005-11-15 04:22 pm UTC (link)
the attempt to move troop headcount "off the record" by having contractors (Haliburton, etc.) provide support.

A lot of jobs are getting shifted to contractors to save money--the overhead in training a soldier is wasted when you put him to flipping burgers. But the bigger driver is to work around the military's screwed-up personnel system. Anybody who's been in his job long enough to get really good at it is overdue for a new assignment by military rules. So if you want to have a real expert sticking with the job, your master sergeant has to retire and become a contractor (at twice the pay). Conversely, I'm one of many people who left to the military so I can do what I'm best at, and changing clothes didn't change my loyalties.

these contractors don't get performance reviews, and they are not getting fired for failure.

I've been on both sides of that. It's much, much easier to dock a contractor on its quarterly award fee than to give a bad performance review to an officer. Managers will get replaced by the contractor at the slightest hint of displeasure from the government representatives--we just had over a dozen at the top of my project booted as punishment for not meeting the schedule. Switching to a different contractor is harder. That means moving money from one congressman's district to another's, so the Federal Acquisition Regulations make it very difficult.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Reference
[info]selenite
2005-11-16 04:07 pm UTC (link)
Me advocating more troops in 2003:
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/003974.php

1st comment:
And however we get the money for it we need a whole division of military police. Between peacekeeping and occupation duties there's plenty of work for them.

2nd comment:
Dean wrote:
> You really want a piece of the US military to be accustomed THAT kind of ROE?
> [peacekeeping]

Yes. Go read http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/10/langewiesche.htm on how hard it is to switch units between war and peacekeeping. We have those responsibilities, we need to have units that can carry them out, and we also need to have the troops who can handle occupation duty in Baghdad as their specialty instead of winging it. We may need more in Iraq, and there'll probably be another country or three we have to supply occupation forces for before WWIV is over.

Ideally we'd add a division to force to provide the MPs, but whether we convert a division or add one or arm the Peace Corps we're going to need people who can do those functions. There's a lot more work for them now than there used to be.

(Reply to this)

(23 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…